Hacker News Reader

Comment by mekdoonggi | Hacker News Reader

This logic doesn't hold up. Should members of congress also get preferential access to experimental treatments? What about governors? We should not give any preferential access based on the status or public office of the patient.

If the president, as a citizen, requests an experimental treatment for compassionate use, that should be considered the same as anyone else.

The difference here is that the president would clearly be abusing his office to get the treatment, and this should be disclosed in his medical evaluations.

View on HN

I disagree, it's the US President, not just a "random citizen", random citizens abuse the system all the time, literally all the time and they do illegal things as well, I won't say everyone but realistically large majority of people do illegal things or try to shortcut, cheat, buy illegal drugs, import illegal materials and so-on. Celebrities do it all the time as well, but also the average daddy. Also corruption for our own families happen all the time (preferential treatment) for various reasons, including covering up criminal activities.

I think also many other people than the president should have preferential treatment when it comes to certain things. If it's about health, yes, the president should be able to cut the "line". If it's about renewing a driver license or other petty things, of course as well, that should be straight cutting line, you wouldn't expect a president to waste his time standing in line anywhere.

I'm not from the US but to me it seems just normal to not compare a rando with the president, especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Imagine if we had an experimental drug that would genuinely make people "smarter", why wouldn't you want the president to immediately access it, it can benefit the nation.

I disagree fundamentally. No, the president should not cut the "line".

> especially if it doesn't hurt anyone else That's exactly the problem. Cutting the line DOES hurt other people. You could quibble over each case to determine if it actually does, but that is a waste of time. The only democratic, humane, and reasonable approach is to not allow this type of thing.

And I am aware that it happens all the time, but there's a difference between accepting that it will happen and endorsing it.

If there was a drug that makes people smarter, I would want it to go to people who need it, just like everything else.

So if the president ends-up in a random ER in a specific city while he was traveling, you are suggesting that he does the line like everyone else? What exceptions should he have, none?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com